This is Public Comment on Agenda Item 12, the “Polk Streetscape Project” (“Polk Project” or “the Project”), on the MTA Board’s March 3, 2015 Agenda. Under the Brown Act and CEQA, you are legally obligated to accept and consider this Comment and to place it in all public files on the Project. Therefore, please assure that this Comment has been distributed to all members of the MTA Board and placed in all applicable files on the Project.

The “categorical exemptions” invoked do not apply to the Project, and therefore you may not lawfully approve the Project or any part of it as proposed, since such approval will violate the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Res. Code §§21000 et seq.)

The Project proposes to reduce traffic and turning capacity on Polk and other Streets by eliminating existing parking lanes, reducing traffic lanes and installing obstructions to traffic flow and turning on this busy commercial corridor.

The unusual and highly inconvenient scheduling of this hearing before the MTA Board after 3:00 p.m., on a day with an extraordinarily long MTA Board Agenda shows the MTA Board’s contempt for the public and the significant impacts of the Project. The hearing should be continued to a date and time when the public can be heard without waiting hours for hearings on unrelated matters, and where the public’s comments will receive the Board’s full and serious attention. The hearing precludes public attendance by many people, including all those people who have to be at work. Combined with the short notice, that scheduling deprives the public of the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the environmental review and administrative proceedings on the Project.

On January 15, 2015, the San Francisco Planning Department issued a “Certificate of Determination of Exemption from Environmental Review” (“Exemption”) claiming that the Project was categorically exempt under Classes 1, 2, and 4 of CEQA, invoking 14 Cal. Code Regs. [“Guidelines”] §§ 15301, 15302, and 15304. None of those categorical exemptions apply to this Project. Further, the significant cumulative impacts on traffic, transit, parking, loading, and air quality caused by the Van Ness BRT project one block away, and by the CPMC Project at Van Ness Avenue at Geary Boulevard, make the Polk Project not categorically exempt. (Guidelines §15300.2) Both of those Projects also present “unusual circumstances” precluding categorical exemption of the Polk Project.

1. The Polk Project Does Not Fit Within The Categorical Exemptions Invoked…

“It started with a bike ride in San Francisco on Sept. 25, 1992. About 50 people cycled in a pack along Market Street, hoping to earn some respect from drivers who sometimes ignored them or edged them off the road. They called it the “Commute Clot.” Today it’s known as Critical Mass, a movement that’s spread worldwide. Supporters say it promotes cycling and the rights of bicyclists. But critics say it is illegal, clogs traffic and antagonizes drivers. We talk about Critical Mass’ 20th anniversary, and its effects on the city.

Host: Michael Krasny

Guests:

Chris Carlsson, co-founder of Critical Mass who was part of the first ride on Sept. 25, 1992, and has since participated in Critical Mass rides in Milan, Vancouver and Porto Alegre, Brazil

*The SFBC raises money through fees but it also gets mucho dinero directly from SFGov. So that’s why it endorsed Ed Lee for Mayor even though SFBC’s members generally did not and still do not like Ed Lee. Similarly, Chrstina Olague, Mayor Ed Lee’s hand-picked recruit for District 5 Supervisor, gets endorsed over Julian Davis even though SFBC members actually favor JD. The SFBC is basically a quasi-government agency now, so it’s very afraid of seeming to say something negative about certain members of the City Family. It’s also afraid of hurting the chances of its officers someday getting jobs / health care directly with SFGov / SFMTA. Anyway, that’s why the SFBC is basically a SFGov kiss-ass these days. It will lobby San Francisco government, certainly, but that’s about as far as it wants to go. (Think about it – who would the SFMTA endorse for Mayor?)

SAN JOSE, Calif., Feb. 22, 2012 — The Mineta Transportation Institute (transweb.sjsu.edu) has published a report that leverages literature review and case studies in the San Francisco Bay area and Portland, OR to recommend ways to improve safety for bicycle commuters. Promoting Bicycle Commuter Safety includes chapters on risks, application of social psychology to bike safety, dimensions of effective practices, and more. The report also includes illustrative tables and photos. Principal investigator was Asbjorn Osland, Ph.D., with several chapter contributors. The 157-page report is available for free PDF download from transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2927.html.

“A basic premise in this report is that cycling should be encouraged because as the number of cyclists increases, the attention of motorists and safety improve,” said Dr. Osland. “However, an important caveat is that the number of cyclists must be commensurate with the infrastructure built for cycling to enhance their safety. This report discusses and evaluates various bicycle commuter settings against a framework of what are called the 5 Es – engineering, education, enforcement, encouragement, and evaluation.”

Dr. Osland noted that, of those five categories, engineering is essential because the infrastructure is vital to protecting cyclists. Education is emphasized because safety is the central focus of the report. A number of case studies was included, and the Bicycle Transportation Alliance in the Portland OR area was prominently featured as an effective example of the “education” and “encouragement” dimensions of the 5 Es. The report concludes with a discussion, and it notes the need for continued research or evaluation, with particular reference to using the social psychological model.

As part of the literature review, researchers found a large amount of crucial data, including:

— In 2008 males accounted for 87 percent of bicycling fatalities in the U.S. More cyclists are male, but females may follow the rules more.

— Bicycle accidents that involved a motor vehicle were a very small percentage of all bicycle accidents; however, the vast majority of fatal bicycle accidents involved a vehicle. This is why engineers suggest keeping cyclists separate from vehicles.

— Too many cyclists violate the rules of the road, yet enforcement is often lacking.

— Driver aggression, drivers “squeezing past” bicycles when there isn’t enough room for them to safely pass, and cyclists riding poorly were mentioned as problems in the Berkeley surveys.

— A lack of empirical data on outcomes makes it difficult to identify true best practic­es regarding safety education programs. However, wearing helmets, maximizing conspicuity, and maintaining one’s bicycle in good working condition while following the rules of the road seem logical.

Tables in the report include those detailing bicycle rider injuries and fatalities; risks associated with riding against traffic, with traffic, and on sidewalks; bicycle stress level values and components; comparison of several bicycle trip factors in the U.S. and Northern Europe; and more.

Illustrations include before-and-after photos of street redesign; examples of safety posters; a children’s bike rodeo; an example of a “bike garden” in Switzerland, where cyclists can practice safety skills; bike safety web pages; street markings and signs; and more. Of special note are the maps detailing the city of Berkeley, Calif. bicycle boulevard network, built on existing and newly-created calmed streets.

Asbjorn Osland, Ph.D., is professor of management at San Jose State University. He received his doctorate and MBA from Case Western Reserve University. He also holds a Master of Social Work and a post-baccalaureate in accounting. He has taught full time since 1993. Before that he worked in Latin America and West Africa for 13 years for Chiquita Brands, for ten years in several countries for Plan International, and for the Peace Corps in Colombia. His research interests include case writing, business and society, and international HRM, with over 60 published articles, cases and chapters, and a comparable number of conference presentations..

ABOUT THE MINETA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE

The Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) conducts research, education, and information and technology transfer, focusing on multimodal surface transportation policy and management issues, especially as they relate to transit. MTI was established by Congress in 1991 as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and was reauthorized under TEA-21 and again under SAFETEA-LU. The Institute has been funded by Congress through the US Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Research and Innovative Technology Administration, by the California Legislature through the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and by other public and private grants and donations, including grants from the US Department of Homeland Security. DOT selected MTI as a National Center of Excellence following competitions in 2002 and 2006. The internationally respected members of the MTI Board of Trustees represent all major surface transportation modes. MTI’s focus on policy and management resulted from the Board’s assessment of the transportation industry’s unmet needs. That led directly to choosing the San Jose State University College of Business as the Institute’s home. Visit transweb.sjsu.edu

Back in the day, Rob Anderson was The Most Hated Man In Town, ’cause he tied the City and County up in knots by insisting upon an Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisco Bicycle Plan. He instigated a slam-dunk lawsuit (really, he was pretty much guaranteed victory) owing to the City trying to go around CA state law by just pretending that an EIR wasn’t necessary.

But eventually, after years, the required report got finished and that was that. IMO, he should have quit while he was ahead, but no, he and his lawyer said the EIR wasn’t good enough – they ended up losing on that issue. Still, you’d have to say he was one of the most successful NIMBYs in CA history.

“I was pleasantly surprised by how there’s not a ‘no way, this is crazy, don’t do it’ feeling out there,” [Mike] Sallaberry said, according to Streetsblog.org, a pro-cycling website. But the bike coalition research, obtained using the open-records law, surveyed only 14 businesses — and it actually reveals very serious objections, which some survey respondents later reiterated in interviews.

To annoy drivers “and make it worse of a pain is not the solution,” Miloslavich said.

Robert Williams, owner of Panhandle Guitar, said: “Fell Street is dangerous to have bike lanes on.”

[SFMTA Spokesmodel Paul] Rose said he was not sure whether Sallaberry’s remarks had been correctly reported. Sallaberry was not available for comment.”

Wow, that’s all you can come up with? You’re “not sure whether the remarks had been correctly reported?”

Wow. That’s the last arrow in your quiver that you should be using, right? Oh, it was the only arrow you had?

Wow.

Obviously, when the SFMTA and its affiliates decide to do a program, it’s the job of the SFMTA to push that program through come Hell or high water. If the program gets executed then the manager succeeded and if the program doesn’t get executed, then the manager failed – it doesn’t matter a whit whether or not the program itself is good or bad for the commonweal at that point. Not at all. What matters is that the SFMTA decided to do something. It’s the job of SFMTA employees to cheerlead and mislead and lie to get any particular program through.

Remember the traffic circles of the lower and upper Haights? Boy, they took out stop signs on Page Street and Waller and then you’d just have to guess at what drivers were going to do when they came upon the intersection. You see, drivers didn’t have to stop. Anyway, that crazy idea got voted down – it lost five times out of five – but all the people behind the stupid traffic circles could say is how “sad” it was that the traffic circles were such a failure.

The fact that they weren’t a good idea never seemed to occur to the people behind the traffic circles.

Fixing the eastbound Panhandle-to-Wiggle connector shouldn’t be that hard. Mostly, it’s about taking out some parking spaces or otherwise freeing up some more room. It’s not about “completing” Oak Street, it’s not about being the next “win-win” from the SFMTA. It’s about making compromises, it’s about winners and losers, it’s about costs and benefits.

Lying to people about the costs doesn’t benefit the people of San Francisco.

“The City is seeking to recover its costs related to the preparation of the administrative record and excerpts of the record requested by the court. We are also seeking to recover the costs we incurred in serving by messenger the attorney for the petitioner. The recovery of these costs, which total $51,959, is authorized by the California Code of Civil Procedure.

Aggressively pursuing the fullest possible recovery of the City’s costs in litigation is a standard practice by the City Attorney’s Office. (And I would assume that’s similarly true of other law offices, both public and private.)”

And here’s another update:

“We’re seeking to recover costs from the petitioners as a whole, so all of them. Assuming we prevail, they can decide among themselves how to apportion what they owe.

Also, we haven’t received a copy of it yet, but it appears from the docket that Ms. Miles filed a motion to strike the cost bill. The hearing is set for January 7.”

So, there you have it.]

[Launching watermelons (two minutes long – there’s a nice payoff with a slo mo bonus) can be fun but it’s always best to quit while you’re ahead…]

I don’t know, I can’t say I understand all this about social gadfly Rob Anderson, or the Coalition for Adequate Review (CAR), or “Ninty-Nine Percent Anderson” or some other person or entity being on the hook for expenses incurred by the City and County of San Francisco because of the whole Bicyle Plan injunction/litigation thing.

“AUG-19-2010 MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS, $51,959.00 TOTAL COSTS, MATURE DATE SEP-10-2010, FILED BY DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO”

“SEP-08-2010 NTC AND MOTION TO STRIKE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO TAX RESPONDENTS COXT CLAIM; MEMO OF P AND A; DECLARATION OF MARY MILES IN SUPPORT ; DECLARATION OF ROB ANDERSON, PROOF OF SERVICE FILED BY PETITIONER COALITION FOR ADEQUATE REVIEW NINTY-NINE PERCENT ANDERSON, ROB HEARING SET FOR JAN-07-2011 AT 09:30 AM IN DEPT 301.”

SAN FRANCISCO (Aug. 6, 2010) — San Francisco Superior Court Judge Peter J. Busch issued an order late this afternoon finding San Francisco in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, in seeking to implement its Bicycle Plan citywide. The ruling effectively dissolves an injunction that continued to prohibit City engineers from moving forward on some planned bicycle route improvements intended to enhance the safety and usability of streets for bicyclists. A previous order from Nov. 2009 lifted significant portions of the original 2006 injunction, but left limited restrictions intact while the adequacy of environmental review for certain projects was adjudicated.

“I am very gratified by the ruling from Judge Busch, who carefully considered an enormous amount of evidence in this case, and found that the City met its environmental review requirements,” said City Attorney Dennis Herrera. “Today’s decision clears an important hurdle toward making San Francisco safer for bicyclists, and healthier for all of us. I am very thankful to the many dedicated public servants involved in this policy initiative and meeting the stringent legal requirements to fulfill it, including Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board of Supervisors, the Municipal Transportation Agency, and the Planning Department.”

So there you have it. “Crazy”* Rob Anderson has driven his dead-bang winner of a lawsuit, one that put him on the front page of the Wall Street Journal…

…and made the City and County** look like a bunch of fools, into the ground. He didn’t know when to quit. (The time to quit would have been when the City finally complied with the requirements of CEQA.)

Who knows, maybe he’ll come up with another beautiful lawsuit idea, another slam dunk, but don’t count on it.

Sic Transit Gloria Anderson

*That’s what they called him, out of frustration, back when they had to pay attention to him.

**”Hey remember when we said we were going to start working on those reports earlier and go faster? Forget all that. Actually, we’re going to start later and go slower. We were going to tell you sooner but…”

[UPDATE: The Mayor would like to add a few words. See them after the jump.]